So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.

That's what the evidence suggests. Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?

People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.

Oh yes because poor David Duke is a victim and is only reacting to the horrible attacks of the left.

And it's not abut "guilt." It's about responsibility. White privilege is real.

I didn't mean it like that with David Duke. What I mean't was far-right groups would garner far less support if the left didn't go no so about injustices that happened 50 years ago.

So if White privilege is real, what do you propose to do about it. Intense redistribution of wealth from whites to blacks.

Logged

Economic score: +6.19Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

We did in many ways, but that doesn't mean that we owe them anything. It is much more important to realize that blacks have overcome their oppression of the past (even if there is still more that needs to be done) and are people who can succeed on their own rather than just "victims".

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

Logged

Economic score: +6.19Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too. He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it). If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma. (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.

Terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queen" may have been code words at one point, but probably not in 1980. By then, racism was no longer widely accepted by society (as evidenced by the firing of Howard Cosell from ESPN three years later after he infamously called a black football player a "little monkey.") Even now, you could reform welfare and give states all the rights you want, but slavery and segregation are never coming back, and rightly so. It's also worth mentioning that most of the closest Reagan states in 1980 were in the South. To assume that all Southerners are racist (either at that time or now) simply because of the actions of their ancestors is wrong. Also, Reagan initially supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating he thought "it should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." (A Call to America, p. 304) He also was the president who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday. (He may have initially opposed it, but so did Dr. King's family.) Oh, and about states' rights: it was never a legitimate argument for segregation in the first place because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that Congress may pass any legislation necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 10:25:27 am by Oldiesfreak1854 »

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Logged

Economic score: +6.19Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

By the way Oldies, any luck in finding that cite I asked for? Given how you've done with how "states' rights" and "welfare queen" were interpreted in Reagan's day I'm leery of accepting anything you say about history without references. You've shown a tendency to misremember history to fit your own ideology.

One of FDR's slogans used to advertise the New Deal to blacks during his presidency was, "let Jesus lead me and welfare feed me."

Care to provide a cite for your claim? All I have been able to find is that it was indeed a Depression-era slogan, but one coined by blacks themselves in thanks for no longer literally starving. I came across nothing to indicate it was a party-invented slogan, let alone one used by FDR himself.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

He may have worked for a living, but he was handed a career by the virtue of his Dad's connections and money, which put him in numerous private schools and through Harvard.

I think you are wrong to assume that the majority welfare recipients don't work for a living. Most of them do. However, many work in low-wage jobs without benefits. Many also have criminal records due to police profiling, which makes it harder for them to find a job that pays a living wage. Thus begins a cycle of poverty and reliance on (weak) governmental programs like TANF and Food Stamps.

The majority of welfare recipients did not have the advantage of the informal and formal networks and money that Mr. Romney was PRIVILEGED to have the day he was born.

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too. He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it). If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma. (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.

Terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queen" may have been code words at one point, but probably not in 1980. By then, racism was no longer widely accepted by society (as evidenced by the firing of Howard Cosell from ESPN three years later after he infamously called a black football player a "little monkey.") Even now, you could reform welfare and give states all the rights you want, but slavery and segregation are never coming back, and rightly so. It's also worth mentioning that most of the closest Reagan states in 1980 were in the South. To assume that all Southerners are racist (either at that time or now) simply because of the actions of their ancestors is wrong. Also, Reagan initially supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating he thought "it should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." (A Call to America, p. 304) He also was the president who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday. (He may have initially opposed it, but so did Dr. King's family.) Oh, and about states' rights: it was never a legitimate argument for segregation in the first place because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that Congress may pass any legislation necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

So you really think that there was no strategic reasons for the way Reagan campaigned? I don't believe that Reagan was racist, but he knew what he had to do. Yes, in that election, states in the south were the closest, so they were the most important for Reagan and Carter to win. His speech in Mississippi was a means to tap into white resentment over the civil rights movement that was still lingering in the region.

It's pretty disingenuous to believe that racism was wiped out only 15 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Legislation changes laws, not the way people think and feel. And if you live in the south, it becomes crystal clear that resentment between white and black still exists.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

He may have worked for a living, but he was handed a career by the virtue of his Dad's connections and money, which put him in numerous private schools and through Harvard.

I think you are wrong to assume that the majority welfare recipients don't work for a living. Most of them do. However, many work in low-wage jobs without benefits. Many also have criminal records due to police profiling, which makes it harder for them to find a job that pays a living wage. Thus begins a cycle of poverty and reliance on (weak) governmental programs like TANF and Food Stamps.

The majority of welfare recipients did not have the advantage of the informal and formal networks and money that Mr. Romney was PRIVILEGED to have the day he was born.

Yeah well there's nought you can do about someone being priviledged. Also, why do you sympathize with them, if they have criminal records?

These government programs trap the weak in poverty, as they provide an excuse for them not to find work.

Logged

Economic score: +6.19Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

Yeah well there's naught you can do about someone being privileged. Also, why do you sympathize with them, if they have criminal records?

Two reasons. Most petty drug crimes shouldn't be crimes at all. Second, for similar offenses poor kids are much more likely to be incarcerated than the privileged. Had Mitt been poor and had the misfortune of having an officer of the law observed his haircut assault on another kid, he'd likely have been put in the back of a patrol car, arrested, and spent some time in jail even if he never did get convicted. Instead, even if a authority figure at the private school his CEO father put him in did observe it, probably the worst that would have happened to him would have been a literal slap on wrist (if the school used corporal punishment) and an injunction to go forth and sin no more.

Don't realy see where's there's much that can be done about the second, but I do have hopes we can get rid of the vast prison industry that exists because we mistakenly treat the mere voluntary consumption of something as a crime.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

...there's nought you can do about someone being priviledged. Also, why do you sympathize with them, if they have criminal records?

These government programs trap the weak in poverty, as they provide an excuse for them not to find work.

It is ridiculous nonsense to claim that someone like Romney ever 'worked' in any sense that bears any similarity to the toils of the masses. Sure, he hung around a big fancy office and had people rushing in to kiss his bottom and shower him with money, but this was just an enjoyable game occasioned by privilege.

And there is something we can do about privilege - we can institute conficatory tax tax rates. Heck at some points in history these privileged enemies of the rest of us have actually be eliminated in the fashion they so richly deserve.

As for your bizarre statement of bigotry against those who have criminal convictions, why wouldn't we have sympathy for such people? After all the real criminals are Romey and his class, not the poors thrown into prison to maintain the slave-camp of capitalism.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

Who is "we"? I owe black people (nor any other people) nothing

Perhaps we owe them the respect to not tie a whole race to welfare abuse. You can certainly talk about welfare reform from both sides of the issue without playing the race card. However, much of the rhetoric on the right for decades was thinly veiled winks to racist thought.

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too. He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it). If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma. (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.

Terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queen" may have been code words at one point, but probably not in 1980. By then, racism was no longer widely accepted by society (as evidenced by the firing of Howard Cosell from ESPN three years later after he infamously called a black football player a "little monkey.") Even now, you could reform welfare and give states all the rights you want, but slavery and segregation are never coming back, and rightly so. It's also worth mentioning that most of the closest Reagan states in 1980 were in the South. To assume that all Southerners are racist (either at that time or now) simply because of the actions of their ancestors is wrong. Also, Reagan initially supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating he thought "it should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." (A Call to America, p. 304) He also was the president who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday. (He may have initially opposed it, but so did Dr. King's family.) Oh, and about states' rights: it was never a legitimate argument for segregation in the first place because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that Congress may pass any legislation necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

So you really think that there was no strategic reasons for the way Reagan campaigned? I don't believe that Reagan was racist, but he knew what he had to do. Yes, in that election, states in the south were the closest, so they were the most important for Reagan and Carter to win. His speech in Mississippi was a means to tap into white resentment over the civil rights movement that was still lingering in the region.

It's pretty disingenuous to believe that racism was wiped out only 15 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Legislation changes laws, not the way people think and feel. And if you live in the south, it becomes crystal clear that resentment between white and black still exists.

It does? I know one native Southerner who lives in my hometown (not in the South) and she is not racist from what I've seen. I have relatives who live in the South who are also by no appearances racist. Granted, they're not natives, but it's still worth mentioning. To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue. I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements. The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

The point is that the civilized state treats, at the very least, the continued incarnated existence of its citizens, and if feasible as a matter of public policy their wellbeing, as intrinsically valuable, rather than valuable out of some sort of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. It should be accepted as a general principle that 'subsidizing [its citizens'] existence' is the basic goal of most government policy relative to the area over which that government exerts its authority, the questions then becoming how this ought to be done and in what ways said existence ought to be subsidized (e.g. in a positive sense through welfare, which isn't inherently more or less valuable based upon the personal characteristics of the recipient in this analysis, versus in a negative sense through merely insuring that fellow-citizens won't randomly stab them in their sleep or at least that their next of kin can have legal recourse if this happens).

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Logged

Economic score: +6.19Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue. I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements. The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue. I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements. The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time. Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South? And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist. In fact, some people would say that the South is now less racist than the rest of the country. "Oh, well, the racism just went underground." Yes, and I'm a pink marshmallow Venusian. Come on, you guys, do you really have to get into the crazy consipracy theories like that?

« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 08:38:55 am by Oldiesfreak1854 »

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.